Nova istorija Slovena ili ...

Nova istorija Slovena ili ...

As its
title suggests, the subject matter of this book is not the Slavs, but the
process leading to what is now as "the Slavs". This process was a function of
both ethnic formation and ethnic identification. In both cases, the "Slavs" were
the object, not the subject. The preceding chapters have presented a series of
perspectives on the history and archaeology of the Lower Danube area during the
sixth and seventh centuries. Each approached a different aspect of the process
of constructing a Slavic ethnie and each highlighted specific themes and
arguments. This chapter will review those themes, but will also attempt to
string them all together into a tripartite conclusion. In doing so, it will
focus on the major issues presented in the introduction the migration and the
making of the Slavs. Though in agreement with those who maintain that the
history of the Slavs began in the sixth century, I argue that the Slavs were an
invention of the sixth century. Inventing, however, presupposed both imagining
or labeling by outsiders and self-identification. MIGRATIONA brief
examination of the historiography of the "Slavic problem" yields an important
conclusion the dominant discourse in Slavic studies, that of "expert" linguists
and archaeologists, profoundly influenced the study of the early Slavs. Though
the evidence, both historical and archaeological, presented itself in a
historical light, historians were expected merely to comb the written sources
for evidence to match what was already known from the linguistic-archaeological
model. Because this model was based on widely spread ideas about such critical
concepts as culture, migration, and language, the basic assumptions on which the
model was based were rarely, if ever, questioned. One such assumption was that
ethnies, like languages originate in an Urheimat and then expand over large
areas through migration. Migration was defined in the terms of the Kulturkreis
school, as the relatively rapid spread of racial and cultural elements. This led
many scholars to abandon a serious consideration of the historical evidence and
to postulate instead a Slavic Urheimat located in the marches of the Pripet
river. Chased from their homeland in the North by the rigors of the harsh
climate, the Slavs then inundated Eastern Europe. A Slavic homeland implied,
however, that the history of the Slavs was older than the first Slavic raids
known from historical sources. The cornerstone of all theories attempting to
project the Slavs into prehistory was Jordanes' Getica. Jordanes equated the
Sclavenes and Antes with the Venethi also known from much earlier sources, such
as Pliny the Elder, Tacitus, and Ptolemy. This made it possible to claim the
Venedi of Tacitus, Pliny, and Ptolemy for the Slavic history. It also provided a
meaning to archaeological research of “Slavic antiquity”. A Polish linguist,
Tadeusz Lehr-Spławinski, first suggested that the archeological culture of the
Vistula basin during the first century BC to the first century AD, which was
known as the Przeworsk culture, was that of Tacitus’ Venedi. Soviet
archaeologists argued that the Slavic Venethi werethe majority of the population
in the area covered by the Chernyakhov culture of the fourth century AD. They
claimed that by AD 300, the Antes separated themselves from the linguistic and
archeological block of the Venedi, and were soon followed by the Sclavenes. More
often than not, therefore, the task of the archaeologist was to illustrate
conclusions already drawn from Jordanes' account of the Slavic
Venethi.Without any doubt, Jordanes had in mind contemporary concerns when
dcscribing barbarians living beyond imperial frontiers. He also used written,
ancient sources regarding the regions under his scrutiny. When applying such
sources, however, what was his concept of geography? What was he thinking about
the ethnographic material provided by his sourccs in the light of what was known
to him about recent developments in thlose same regions? Why did he use three
different names for what was apparently one group of people? In Chapter 2, as
well as elsewhere, I attempted to answer these questions while addressing issues
of authorship and chronology of sources. My argument is that instead of being an
eyewitness account, Jordanes’ description of Sclavenes and Antes was based on
two or more maps with different geographical projections, the imaginary space of
which he filled with both sixth-century and much earlier ethnic names he found
in varios sources. This seriously diminishes the value of the most important
piece of evidence invoked by advocates of both a considerable antiquity of the
Slavs and their migration from the North. Moreover, no source dated before
Justinian’s reign (527-65) refers to Slavs or Slavic Venethi. Despite some
overlap in timespans covered by Procopius’ Warsand the chronicle of Marcellinus
Comes (including the continuation to 548 added by another author), there is no
mention of Slaves in the chronicle. Procopius, on the other hand, made it very
clear that a “Slavic problem” arose, along with others, only during Justinian’s
reign.The Slavs did not migrate from Pripet marshes because of hostile
environmental conditions. Nor did they develop forms of social organization
enabling them to cope with such conditions and presumably based on cooperation
and social equality (zadruga). Niederle’s thesis does not stand against the
existing evidence and has at its basis an outdated concept of migration. That ht
emigrationist model should ba abandoned is also suggested by the archaeological
evidence examined in Chapter 6. No class of evidence matches current models for
the archaeological study of (pre)historic migration. More important, assemblages
of the Lower Danube area, where, according to the migrationist model, the Slavs
migrated from Pripet marshes, long antedate the earliest evidence available from
assemblages in the alleged Urheimat. Short-distance population movements, but
not migration, must have accompanied the implementation of a form of “itinerant
agriculture,” which, though not based on the slash-and-burn method, may have
encouraged settlement mobility.That the Slavs were present on the northern
bank of the Danube before the implementation of Justinian’s building program in
the mid-500s is demonstrated by their raids known form Procopius. It will
probably remain unknown whether or not any of the groups arguably living in
contemporary settlements excavated by Romanian archaeologists called temselves
Sclavenes or Antes. This, however, was the region form which Romanes recruited
mercenaries for the war in Italy. This is also the region that produced the
largest number of coins struck under Emperors Anastasius and Justin I, as well
as during Justinian’s early regnal years. A small number of hoards with last
coins minted during this period was also found in this area. It is hard to judge
form the existing evidence, but from what we have it appears that the Slavic
raids mentioned by Procopius originated in this same region. This may also
explain why Chilbudius’ campaigns of the early 530s targated against Sclavenes,
Antes, and Cutrigurs were directed to a region not far from the Danube
river.We are fortunate to have first-hand sources of information for the
late 500s and the early 600s, such as the Strategikon, and the campaign diary
used by Theophylact Simocatta’s Books VI-VIII. In both cases, our knowledbe,
however restricted, of what was going on north of the Danube river is based,
almost certainly, on eyewitness accounts. Neither Theophylact nor the author of
the Strategikon, knew any other area of Slavic settlements except that located
north of the Danube frontier. Furthermore, no clear evidence exists of an
outright migration of th eSlavs (Sclavenes) tho the regions south of the Danube
until the early years of Heraclius’ reign. Phocas’ revolt of 602 was not
followed by an irresistible flood of Sclavenes submerging the Balkans. In fact,
there are no raids recorded during Phoca’s reign, either by Sclavenes or by
Avars. By contrast, large-scale raiding activities resumed during Heraclius’
early regnal years. This is also confirmed by the archaeolocical evidence
discussed in Chapter 4. Some forts along the Danube or in the interior were
destroyed by fire at some point between Jistinian0’s and Maurice’s reigns. In
many cases, however, restoration followed destruction and forts were abandoned
at various dates without signs of violence. After Maurice’s assassination,
Phocas’ army returned to the Danube and remained there at least until 605, if
not 620. This is clearly attested by Sebeos and does not contradict in any way
what we know form the archaeological and numismatic evidence. The earliest
archeaeological evidence of settlement assemblages postdating the general
withdrawl of Roman armies from the Balkans is that of the 700s. This suggests
that there was no “Slavic tide” in the Balkans following the presumed collapse
of the Danube frontier. In addition, the archaeological evidence confirms the
picture drawn form the analysis of written sources, namely that the “Slavs” were
isolated pockets of population in various areas of the Balkans, which seem to
have experienced serious demographic decline in the seventh century.The
discussion in Chapter 4 has been based on the concept that the disintegration of
the military system in the Balkans, which Justinian implemented in the mid-500s,
was the result not so much of the destruction inflicted by barbarian invasions,
as of serious economic and financial problems caused both by the emperor’s
policies elsewhere and by the impossibility of providing sufficient economic
support to his gigantic building program of defense. This conclusion is
substantiated by the analysis of sixth-century Byzantine coin hoards, which
suggest that inflation, not barbarian raids, was responsible for high rates of
non-retrieval.

ETHNICITY AND ETHNIE: THE VIEW FORM THE INSIDEAfter
Chilbudius’ death in 533, there was a drastic change in Justinian’s agenda in
the Balkans. Form this moment until Maurice’s campaigns of the 590s, no
offensive strategy underpinned imperial policies in the area. Instead, Justinian
began an impressive plan of fortification, of a size and quality the Balkans had
never witnessed before. The project, or at least the most important part of it,
was probably completed in some twenty years. It was completed in its basic lines
when Procopius finished Book IV of his Buildings. In addition, Justinian
remodelled the administrative structure of the Balkans an created the quaestura
exercitus in order to support both financially and militarily those border
provinces which were most affected by his building program. He also shifted
military responsibilities form army generals to local authorities, especially
bishops (novel II).These measures were not taken in response to any major
threat, for Roman troops were still in control of the left bank of the Danube,
possibly thorugh bridge-heads such as those of Turnu Severin (Drobeta) and Celei
(Sucidava). This is shown by the edict 13, issued in 538, which clearly stated
that troops were still sent (if only as a form of punishment) north of the
Danube river, “in order to watch at the frontier of that place.”In addition
to military and administrative measures, Justinian offered his alliance to the
Antes (foedus of 545) and began to recruit mercenaries from among both Sclavenes
and Antes for his war in Italy. All this suggests that Chilbudius’ campaigns of
the early 530s opened a series of very aggressive measures on the Danube
frontier, which were meant to consolidate the Roman military infrastructure in
the Balkans. It is during this period of aggressive intrusion into affairs north
of the Danube frontier that Sclavenes and Antes entered the orbit of Roman
interests. Justinian’s measures were meant to stabilize the situation in
barbaricum, which is why the foedus with the Antes was only signed after the end
of the war between Antes and Sclavenes. Whether or not he intended to create a
buffer zone between the Danube frontier and the steppe corridor to the
northeast, Justinian’s goal was only partially fulfilled. Two devastating
invasions of the Cutrigurs, in 539/40 and 558/9, respectively, borke through
both Justinian’s system of alliances and his fortified frontier. None of the
subsequent Sclavene raids can be compared in either size or consequences to the
Cutrigur invasions. However, knowing that the first recorded raid of the
Sclavenes is in 545, it is possible that Sclavene raiding was a response to
Justinian’s aggressive policies, with both the fortified frontier and his
barbarian allies. The Sclavenes may have felt encouraged by the Cutrigur
breakthrough of 540, but it is no accident that their first raid coincided with
Justinian’s alliance with the Antes.The interruption of Sclavene raids
coincides with the completion of the building program. With the exception of
Zabergan’s invasion of 558/9, there were no raids across the Danube for
twenty-five years. This is an indication of the efficiency of the defensive
system, consisting of three interrelated fortification lines, the strongest of
which was not along the Danube, but along the Stara Planina. Later, this
grandiose program was extended to the northwestern Balkans, following the defeat
of the Ostrogoths and the conquest of Dalmatia. Along the Danube and in the
immediate hinterland, forts were relatively small (less than 1 hectare of
enclosed area). Each one may have been garrisoned by a numerus (tagma), the
minimal unit of the early Byzantine army, with up to 500 men. This may explain
why small armies of Sclavenes (such as those responsible for the raids in the
late 540s and early 550s) had no problems taking a relatively large number of
forts. It also explains why Sclavene or Avar armies, no matter how large, moved
with remarkable speed after crossing the Danube, without encountering any major
resistance. The excavation of these forts and the estimation of the number of
soldiers who may have manned these forts in the Iron Gates area indicate that
the entire sector may have relied for its defense on forces amounting to some
5,000 men, the equivalent of a Roman legion. If, as argued in Chapter 7, the
population of a Sclavene χωρίον was somewhat inferior in size to one or two
bandons (400 to 800 men), we may be able to visualize the effort of mobilizing
warriors for a successful raid across the Danube, which a great-man like
Ardagastus may have faced. It is hard to believe that any chief was able to
raise an army of 100,000, as maintained by Menander the Guardsman. The 5,000
warriors who attacked Thessalonica at some point before 586, nevertheless, is a
likely figure. In any case, there is no reason to doubt the ability of
Archbishop John, who may have been an eyewitness, to give a gross estimate of
the enemy’s force. If so, then this indicates that raids strong enough to reach
distant targets, such as Thessalonica, usually aimed at mobilizing a military
force roughly equivalent to a Roman legion. Furthermore, there is no evidence,
until the early regnal years of Heraclius, of an outright migration of the Slavs
(Sclavenes) to the region south of the Danube river. No evidence exists that
Romans ever tried to prevent the crossing, despite the existence of a Danube
military fleet. Moreover, all major confrontations with Sclavene armies or
“throngs” took place south of the Stara Planina mountains.Nevertheless, the
efficiency of the fortified frontier, at least in its initial phase, cannot be
doubted. During the last fifteen years of Justinian’s reign, no Slavic raid
crossed the Danube. The implementation of the fortified frontier seems to have
been accompanied by its economic “closure.” This is shown by the absence of both
copper and gold coins dated between 545 and 565 in both stray finds and hoards
found in Romania. The economic “closure” was not deliberate, for it is likely
that the strain on coin circulation, which is also visible in hoards found south
of the Danube frontier, was caused by the very execution of Justinian’s gigantic
plan. Fewer coins were now withdrawn from circulation, and even fewer found
their way into hoards. It is possible, however, that the implementation of the
fortified frontier strained not only the coin circulation within and outside the
Empire, but also economic relations between communities living north and south
of the Danube frontier, respectively.The evidence of hoards shows that most
were equivalent to the cost of one or two modii of Egyptian wheat. We can
speculate that hoards found north of the Danube were payments for small
quantities of grain sold to soldiers in sixth-century forts south of the Danube.
In any case, these hoards, which primarily consist of copper, testify to trading
activity. Stray finds of coins struck for Justinian and his followers, some of
which were found in settlement contexts, confirm the hypothesis that Byzantine
coins were used for commercial and non-commercial transactions in communities
living north of the Danube. Whether or not these coins were used as “primitive
money”, their very existence presupposes that copper coinage was of some value
even outside the system which guaranteed its presumably fiduciary value. If so,
the inflation delineated by the analysis of hoards found in the Balkans (south
of the Danube river), which became visible especially after 550, as the
purchasing power of the follies decreased drastically, as well as the economic
strains of the general circulation of goods, may have affected also the owners
of the Romanian hoards. It is interesting to note, therefore, that between 545
and 565 the coin circulation was interrupted both north and south of the Danube
river. This interruption was most probably accompanied by a strong crisis in
trading activities across the Danube and subsequent scarcity of goods of Roman
provenance, which may have been obtained by such means and played, as shown in
Chapter 6, an important role as prestige goods. This may have increased the
level of social competition and encouraged the rise of leaders whose basis of
power was now warfare. It is most probably during this period that we can see
the first signs of emblemic styles in the material culture changes described in
Chapter 6. Great-men, like

Ardagastus, and big-men, like the leaders
mentioned by Pseudo-Caesarius, represented difierent responses to these
historical conditions. These two forms of power may not only have coexisted, but
also have been used by the same individuals. One way or another, both forms
implied access to prestige goods, the quautity of which, if we are to believe
Menander the Guardsman, was considerable. It is because he knew that he would
find the land of the Sclavenes "full of gold" that Bayan, the qagan of the
Avars, decided to launch his punitive expedition against Dauritas and his fellow
chiefs. It is because of prestige goods, such as gold, silver, horses, and
weapons, that the Sclavene warriors of 581, according to John of Ephesus, were
still ravaging the Balkan provinces in 584. Finally, the evidence of amphoras
found on sites north of the Dauube frontier, many of which are from the second
half the sixth century, points to the same direction. Olive oil, wine, or garum
were as good for showing off as horses and weapons. However, Byzantium was not
the only source of prestige goods. The study of "Slavic" bow fibulae in Chapter
6 highlighted multiple and very complicated networks for the procurement of such
goods. Finally, the analysis of hoards of silver in Chapter 4 and that of silver
and bronze in Chapter 5 suggests that around AD 600, this was by no means a
unique phenomenon.

The majority of sites found next to the Danube frontier and in the neighboring regions of Romania, Moldova, and Ukraine produced a relatively large number of artifacts that indicate a date in the second half of the sixth century or in the early seventh century. Though many such items may have come into existence at an earlier date, artifacts displaying emblemic styles, such as "Slavic" bow fibulae became popular only after c. 550. Such dress accessories point to long-distance relation, with communities in Mazuria and Crimea, which may indicate gifts or matrimonial alliances. Specimens brought from such distant locations into the Lower Danube area were quickly imitated in less sophisticated ornamentation, apparently in an effort to respond to an increasing local demand of symbols of group identity. Since "Slavic" bow fibulae from Romania were primarily found in settlements and since there is always only one fibula per settlement, it is possible that these dress accessories were symbols of social identity, which served as marker of social status for the newly emerging elites. The analysis of the intrasite distribution of artifacts presented in Chaptcr 6 reveals the existence, on many sociopetal sites, of a communal front region, which was both a locus of communal activities involving consumption of special foods (flat loaves of bread) and an arena of social competition, a "beyond-the-household" context for displays of leadership symbols. It is tempting to relate the results of this analysis, particularly the connection between bow fibulae and the communal front region, to the evidence of Pseudo-Caesarius, who associated chiefs with feasting. The mechanisms by which some of the big-man-like leaders known from written sources may have reached power had probably to do with the orchestration of communal ceremonies, of feasts and assemblies, in which those leaders played a crucial role.

The earliest changes in material culture which can be associated with emblemic styles and arguably represent some form of group identity postdate by a few decades the first mention of Sclavenes and Antes in historical sources. Can we call (Slavic) ethnicity this identity constructed by material culture means? The analysis presented in Chapter 5 shows that matcrial culture may have been and indeed was used for the construction of ethnicity. Despite intensive interaction across the "no man's land" between the Tisza and the Danube, clear material culture distinctions were maintained in a wide range of artifacts. Material culture contrasts were created and maintained in order to justify between-group competition. As a consequence, emblemic styles were particularly visible during the Lombard-Gepid wars of the mid-500s. Because group identity, and especially ethnicity, necessitated public displays of such styles, artifacts used for the construction of ethnicity were, more often than not, associated with the female apparel, in particular with that of aristocratic women. The same is true for hoards of silver and bronze in the Middle Dnieper area. In addition, hoards emphasize that an important route to social advancement was access to foreign goods, such as Byzantine silver plate. Finally, ethnicity, as defined in the first chapter, presupposes an orientation to the past, determined by charismatic eutrepreneurs, who gather adherents by using familiar amalgamative metaphors. The inspiration for many ornamental patterns on "Slavic" brooches were fifth-century decorative patterns, such as the Giva-Domolospuszta scrollwork, brooch forms of the Aquileia class, or pairs of bird heads. At least bird heads can be viewed as "citations" from the "heroic" past, for this decoration was typically associated with artifacts dated to the times of Attila's Hunnic Empire.

To judge from the existing evidence, the rise of the local elites was coincidental with the dissemination of emblemic styles which may have represented some form of group idcntity. It is very likely that this is more than simple coincidence. Big-men and chiefs became prominent especially in contexts in which they embodied collective interest and responsibility. Chiefs like Dauritas and Samo "created" groups by speaking and taking action in the name of their rcspective communities. Political and military mobilization was the response to the historical conditions created by the implementation of the fortified frontier on the Danube. In this sense, the group identity represented by emblemic styles was a goal-oriented identity, formed by internal organization and stimulated by external pressure. The politicization of cultural differences is, no doubt, one of the most important features of ethnicity. Repeated production and consumption of distinctivc style of material culture may have represented ethnic identity. The construction of ethnicity was, however, linked to the signification of social differentiation. Changing social relations impelled displays of group identity. The adoption of the dress with bow fibulae was a means by which individuals could both claim their membership of the new group and proclaim the achievement and consolidation of elite status.

Can we put the name "Slavic" to this (or these) ethnic identity(-ies)? As suggested in Chapter 3, the Sclavene ethnicity is like1y to have been an invention of Byzantine authors, despite the possibility, which is often stressed by linguistically minded historians, that the name itself was derived from the self-designation of an ethnic group. It is interesting to note that this ethnic name (slovene) appeared much later and only on the periphery of the Slavic linguistic area, at the interface with linguistically different groups. Was language, then, as Soviet ethnographers had it, the "precondition for the rise of ethnic communities"? In the case of the Slavic ethnie, thc answer must be negative, for a variety of reasons. First, contemporary sources attest the use of more than one language by individuals whom their authors viewed as Antes or Sclavenes. The "phoney Chilbudius" was able to claim succesfully a false identity, that of a Roman general, because he spoke Latin fluently, and Perbundos, the "king" of the Rynchines, had a thorough command of Greek. In fact, language shifts were inextricably tied to shifts in the political economy in which speech situations were located. Just how complicated this political economy may have been is shown by the episode of the Gepid taken prisoner by Priscus' army, during the 593 campaign. He was close to the Sclavene "king" Musocius and communicated with him in the "king's language." Formerly a Christian, he betrayed his leader and cooperated with Priscus, presumably using Latin as the language of communication. Finally, both the Gepid traitor and Musocius' Sclavene subjects, who were lured into the ambush set by Roman troops, were accustomed to Avar songs, which were presumably in a language different from both Slavic and Latin. Second, Common Slavic itself may have been used as a lingua franca within and outside the Avar qaganate. This may explain, in the eyes of some linguists, the spread of this language throughout most of Eastern Europe, obliterating old dialects and languages. It may also explain why this language remained fairly stable and remarkably uniform through the ninth century, with only a small number of isoglosses that began to form before Old Church Slavonic was written down. This is also confirmed by the fact that Old Church Slavonic, a language created on the basis of a dialect spoken in Macedonia, was later understood in both Moravia and Kievan Rus'. The same conclusion can be drawn from the cpisode of Raduald, duke of Benevento, reported by Paul the Deacon and discussed in Chapter 3. Raduald, who had previously been duke of Friuli, was able to talk to the Slavs who had invaded Benevento, coming from Dalmatia across the sea. Since the duchy of Friuli had heen constantly confionted with S1avic raids from the neighboring region, we may presume that duke Raduald learned how to speak Slavic in Friuli. His Slavic neighbors in the north apparently spoke the same language as the Dalmatian S1avs.

Slavic was also used as a lingua franca in Bulgaria, particulary after the conversion to Christianity in 865. It is on1y the association with this political development that brought Slavic into closer contact with other lauguages. This explains why, despite the presumed presence of Slavic-speaking communities in the Balkans at a relatively early date, the influence of Common Slavic on the non-Slavic languages of the area â Romanian, Albanian, and Greek - is minimal and far less significant than that of Bulgarian, Serbo-Croatian, and Macedonian. The absence of a significant influence or Common Slavic in the Balkans is also evident from the small number of Balkan place names of Slavic origin, which could be dated on phonetical grounds, with any degree of certainty, before c. 800.

As with material culture emblemic styles, the Slavic language may have been used to mark ethnic boundaries. The emblematic use of Slavic, however, was a much later phenomenon and cannot be associated with the Slavic ethnie of the sixth and seventh centuries. Slavs did not become Slavs because they spoke Slavic, but because they were called so by others.

THE SLAV1C ETHNIE: THE VIEW FROM THE OUTSIDE

All written sources of the sixth century and some of the seventh use exclusively Sclavenes and/or Antes to refer to groups living north of the Lower Danube. Though the author of the Strategikon specifically mentioned that there were many "kings," which suggests more than one political and, presumably, ethnic, identity, there are no other names besides Sclavenes and Antes. Moreover, despite the fact that the Antes were since 545 the allies of the Empire, the author of the Strategikon listed them among potential enemies. By contrast, the first tribal names (Drugubites, Sagudates, Belegezites, etc.) appear almost concomitantly in Book II of the Miracles of St. Demetrius and in Fredegar. In both cases, the difference betwecn ethnies was important, because of differing political interests linked with various ethnicities. Some of the tribes described in Book II of the Miracles of St. Demetrius were among those besieging Thessalonica. They were viewed as savage, brutish, and heathen. Others, like the Belegezites, were friendly and, at times, potential and important allies, who were able to supply the besiegcd city with food. To Fredegar, the Wends were different from the rest of the Slavs because of their successful revolt against the Avars, and, more important, because of their role in the demise of Dagobert's power. The same is true for Theophanes' account of the Bulgar migration. The two Slavic groups mentioned in connection with the conquest by Asparuch's warriors of northeastern Bulgaria have specific tribal names, because they were treated differently by both Byzantium and the conquering Bulgars. The Severeis were resettled on the frontier between the Bulgar qaganate and Byzantium, while the Î­ĎĎÎą ÎłÎľÎ˝ÎľÎąÎŻ who until then had probably been clients of the Byzantine emperor, were moved on the western frontier against the Avars.

In all those cases, ethnicity was a function of power in a very concrete and simple way. Ethnies were not classified in terms of language or culture, but in terms of their military and political potential. Names were important, therefore, because they gave meaning to categories of political classification. If this is true, however, then "Antes" were also a similar example, since from 545 to 602, they played a complctcly different role for imperial policies on the Danube frontier than the Sclavenes. The Antes were constantly allies of the Romans, while Sclavenes always appeared on the side of their enemies. A different Antian ethnicity may thus have existed irrespective of the common, "utterly barbarous," language, which, according to Procopius, both ethnies used. Emperor Maurice's campaigus of the late 500s against all potential and true enemies (Avars and Sclavenes) may have blurred this difference or at least made it negligible. In the eyes of the author of the Strategikon, the Sclavenes and the Antes not only had the same customs, weapons, and tactics, but both were treated as potential enemies.

In the light of these remarks, the very nature of a Sclavene ethnicity needs serious reconsideration. Procopius and later authors may have used this ethnic name as an umbrella-term for various groups living north of the Danube frontier, which were neither "Antes," nor "Huns" or "Avars". Jordanes did the same, though unlike others, he chose an ancient name, the Venethi, probably because he believed that the contemporary configuration of gentes beyond the limits of the Empire was a consequence, if not a reincarnation, of that described by ancient authors such as Tacitus or Ptolemy. To him, in other words, the barbarians of the sixth century unless touched by the course of Gothic history, were frozen in time and space, basically the same and in the same place as viewed by the ancient authors. That no Slavic ethnicity existed in the eyes of any sixth- or seventh-century Byzantine author, which could be compared to the modern concept of ethnicity, is shown by Pseudo-Cesarius' usage of the term "Sclavenes". To him, the opposite of "Sclavenes" is ÎĄÎšĎÎšÎąĎ ÎżÎŻ, which was not an ethnie, but a name for the inhabitants of the Roman province of Dacia Ripensis. The contrast is that between a group living north and another living south of the Danube frontier, to which Pseudo-Caesarius referred by the biblical name Physon. His focus was on the specific location, within one and the same climate, of groups supposedly different in customs and religious life. The same is true for the author of the Strategikon. If Sclavenes were discusscd in a different chapter than Avars, it is because, in his eyes, they had radically different social and political systems and, as a consequence, different forms of warfare. Roman generals, therefore, ought to learn how to figh them differently. Nevertheless, when it comes to real raids, the evidence discussed in Chapter 3 reveals that many aurhors were not at ease pinning down who exactly was ravaging Thrace in the 580s and who, at the same time, was in Greece.

This, I must emphasize, is in sharp contrast to other authors' concepts of Slavic ethnicity. That to our sixth- and seventh-century authors, ethnicity was an instrument to differentiate between enemies and allies is also shown by Theophylact Simocatta's episode of the Gepid captured by Priscus' army in 593. To the author of the Feldzugsjournal used by Theophylact as a source for Priscus' campaign, this Gepid was different from "Sclavenes," even if he had chosen to live among them and was a friend, if not a subject, of "king" Musocius. His "Gepid" ethnicity became apparent and important only when it became necessary to make a difference between him, a former Christian, and the the other, "Sclavene" prisoners, who refused to reveal the location of their chief's village. Unlike them, the "Gepid" deserter would become a key factor for the successful conclusion of Priscus' campaign. Viewed from this perspective, ethnicities were just labels attached to various actors in histoically determined situations. Like all labels, they were sometimes misleading. The author of the Strategikon warns against those still claiming to be "Romans" (ÎĄĎÎźÎąĎÎżÎš), but who "have given in to the times," forgot "their own people," and preferred "to gain the good will of the enemy," by luring Roman armies into ambushes set by the Sclavenes. To the experienced soldier who wrote the Strategikon, any ethnicity, including a Roman one, should be treated with extreme suspicion, if not backed by a politically correct affiliation.

Byzantine authors seem to have used "Sclavenes" and "Antes" to make sense of the process of group identification which was taking place under their own eyes just north of the Danube frontier. They were, of course, interested more in the military and political consequences of this process than in the analysis of Slavic ethnicity. Chiefs and chief names were more important than customs or culture. When customs and culture came to the fore, as in the case of the Strategikon, it was because its author believed that they were linked to the kind of warfare preferred by Sclavenes and Antes. A similar concept may have guided Procopius in writing his Slavic excursus. It is because of their military skills that the Sclavenes and the Antes caught the attention of the Roman authors. As early as 537, Sclavene mercenaries were fighting in Italy on the Roman side. The first Sclavene raid recorded by Procopius predates by only five or six years the publication of the first seven books of the Wars. In his work, Procopius viewed the Sclavenes and the Antes as "new" and their presence in the Lower Danube region as recent. Although he constantly referred to Sclavenes in relation to Huns or other nomads, there is no indication that he believed them to have recently come from some other place. That he considered them to be "new" can only mean that they had not, until then, represented a political force worth being treated like the Lombards, the Gepids, the Cutrigurs, and other "allies" surrounding the Empire. It is because he thought the Sclavenes and the Antes were not politically important (or, at least, not as importallt as Lombards, Gepids, or Cutrigurs) that Procopins failed to record any chief names. To be one of Justinian's Î­Î˝ĎĎÎżÎ˝Î´ÎżÎš, one needed first to have a "king," The irony behind the episode of the "phoney Chilbudius," with its plot setting imitating that of a neo-Attic comedy, is that the Antes, who eventually became Justinian's Î­Î˝ĎĎÎżÎ˝Î´ÎżÎš, did not have a true leader, for they had "lived from old under a democracy."

The making of the Slavs was less a matter of ethnogenesis and more one of invention, imagining and labeling by Byzantine authors. Some form of group identity, however, which we may arguably call ethnicity, was growing out of the historical circumstances following the fortification of the Danube limes. This was therefore an identity formed in the shadow of Justinian's forts, not in the Pripet marshes. There are good reasons to believe that this identity was much more complex than the doublet "Sclavenes-Antes" imposed by the Byzantine historiography. Book II of the Miracles of St Demetrius and Fredegar's chronicle give us a measure of this complexity. That no "Slavs" called themselves by this name not only indicates that no group took on the label imposed by outsiders, but also suggests that this label was more a pedantic construction than the result of systematic interaction across ethnic boundaries. The first clear statement that "we are Slavs" comes from the twelfth-century Russian Primary Chronicle. With this chronicle, however, the making of the Slavs ends and another story begins: that of their "national" use for claims to ancestry.

Migration was defined in the terms of the Kulturkreis
school, as the relatively rapid spread of racial and cultural elements. This led
many scholars to abandon a serious consideration of the historical evidence and
to postulate instead a Slavic Urheimat located in the marches of the Pripet
river. Chased from their homeland in the North by the rigors of the harsh
climate, the Slavs then inundated Eastern Europe.
------------------------------Migracije naroda u ovo doba su bile moguce
samo u slucaju nekih velikih klimatskih promena gde su se narodi MORALI pomerati
zbog nemogucih uslova za zivot. Imamo primer Avara ali kada govorimo o Slovenima
i njihovim tzv. velikim seobama naroda i to sa severa na jug -

The Slavs did not migrate from Pripet marshes because of hostile
environmental conditions. Nor did they develop forms of social organization
enabling them to cope with such conditions and presumably based on cooperation
and social equality
(zadruga)-------------------------------------Aha!

That ht
emigrationist model should ba abandoned is also suggested by the archaeological
evidence examined in Chapter 6. No class of evidence matches current models for
the archaeological study of (pre)historic
migration.---------------------Aha!

Short-distance population
movements, but not migration, must have accompanied the implementation of a form
of “itinerant agriculture,” which, though not based on the slash-and-burn
method, may have encouraged settlement mobility.------------Dobro
receno.

That the Slavs were present on the northern bank of the
Danube before the implementation of Justinian’s building program in the mid-500s
is demonstrated by their raids known form Procopius.
----------------------------Ako su bili tamo zasto bi mi onda govorili o
kojekakvim seobama?

This, however, was the region form which Romanes
recruited mercenaries for the war in Italy------------------Naravno
regrutovali su Slovene da samo to rascistimo.

Neither Theophylact nor
the author of the Strategikon, knew any other area of Slavic settlements except
that located north of the Danube frontier.
--------------------------Apsolutno!

Furthermore, no clear
evidence exists of an outright migration of th eSlavs (Sclavenes) tho the
regions south of the Danube until the early years of Heraclius’
reign.--------------Sta onda ovo znaci?

Phocas’ revolt of 602
was not followed by an irresistible flood of Sclavenes submerging the Balkans.
In fact, there are no raids recorded during Phoca’s reign, either by Sclavenes
or by Avars. By contrast, large-scale raiding activities resumed during
Heraclius’ early regnal years. ---------------------Lepo receno i mnogo
toga potvrdjuje.

In many cases, however, restoration followed
destruction and forts were abandoned at various dates without signs of violence.
-------------------I ovo je vazno da se napomene!

namely that
the “Slavs” were isolated pockets of population in various areas of the Balkans,
which seem to have experienced serious demographic decline in the seventh
century.-----------------I ovo potvrdjuje tvrdnje
Horenskog.

This conclusion is substantiated by the analysis of
sixth-century Byzantine coin hoards, which suggest that inflation, not barbarian
raids, was responsible for high rates of
non-retrieval.--------------Veoma znacajno!

In addition to
military and administrative measures, Justinian offered his alliance to the
Antes (foedus of 545) and began to recruit mercenaries from among both Sclavenes
and Antes for his war in Italy. -----------Opet je rec o
Slovenima!

It is during this period of aggressive intrusion into
affairs north of the Danube frontier that Sclavenes and Antes entered the orbit
of Roman interests. -------------------U ovome i jeste cela
fora!

It is hard to believe that any chief was able to raise an army
of 100,000, as maintained by Menander the Guardsman. The 5,000 warriors who
attacked Thessalonica at some point before 586, nevertheless, is a likely
figure.--------------------

It also
explains why Sclavene or Avar armies, no matter how large, moved with remarkable
speed after crossing the Danube, without encountering any major resistance.

This explains why, despite the presumed presence of
Slavic-speaking communities in the Balkans at a relatively early date, the
influence of Common Slavic on the non-Slavic languages of the area – Romanian,
Albanian, and Greek - is minimal and far less significant than that of
Bulgarian, Serbo-Croatian, and Macedonian.
---------------------

Zanimljivo, o ovome cu nesto
kasnije.

Slavs did not become Slavs because they spoke Slavic, but
because they were called so by others. -------------------Hm? O tom po
tom.

Procopius viewed the Sclavenes and the Antes as "new" and their
presence in the Lower Danube region as recent. Although he constantly referred
to Sclavenes in relation to Huns or other nomads, there is no indication that he
believed them to have recently come from some other place. That he considered
them to be "new" can only mean that they had not, until then, represented a
political force worth being treated like the Lombards, the Gepids, the
Cutrigurs, and other "allies" surrounding the Empire.
-----------------Mnogo bolje objasnjenje nego sto su to zakljucivali
neki drugi istoricari. Fora je naravno u reci "new".

This was
therefore an identity formed in the shadow of Justinian's forts, not in the
Pripet marshes. There are good reasons to believe that this identity was much
more complex than the doublet "Sclavenes-Antes" imposed by the Byzantine
historiography. --------------------------Znacajan
zakljucak!

I za kraj;

That no "Slavs" called themselves by
this name not only indicates that no group took on the label imposed by
outsiders, but also suggests that this label was more a pedantic construction
than the result of systematic interaction across ethnic
boundaries.

THE AVARS
‘They are treacherous, foul, untrustworthy and possessed by an
insatiable desire for riches.’ These ‘scoundrels’ are ‘very experienced
in military matters’ and ‘prefer to prevail over their enemies not so
much by force as by deceit, surprise attacks and the cutting of supply
lines.’
========Nemam primedbi sem sto su bogatstvo voleli
svi "varvari".

The Roman Emperor Maurice was writing, in the late sixth century, about
the hordes of Mongolian Avars who had migrated across Asia and had begun
to cause major problems for his Empire.
==========OK, nisam siguran ali jako sumnjam da je
Maurice pisao o mongolskim Avarima. Isto tako sumnjam da je znao sto to
znaci "migracija preko (cele???) Azije".

Tree-ring analysis and historical evidence from Siberia to the north of
Mongolia, and from China to the south, suggest that the region was hit
particularly badly by drought. And, as in so many other parts of the
world, it was the fact that the disaster affected different peoples with
different economies in quite different ways that led to political
change.
===========OK, tu imamo jake dokaze. Ali sta ako su
te klimatske promene naterale neke druge nomade u migraciju pa su ti
proterali Avare prema zapadu??? Kandidata ima puno - sve po redom
Turkmeni ...

In Mongolia, the event seems to have humbled the Avars and, in net
terms, benefited their vassals, the Turks. Indeed, it enabled the Turks
to overthrow their Avar masters and to launch their own empire. The Avar
fall from grace was bad news for the Romans – but, in the long term,
definitely good news for the Turks and, indirectly, good news also for
the Arabs and for Islam, who were to benefit from Roman weakness.
==================Opet gradimo istoriju Avara na nekim
hipotezama koje niposto nisu dokazane. A sto se Arapa i islama tice,
opet pogresno. Imperija se naime iscrpila ratovanjem sa Sasanidskom
Persijom a ne Avarima. Isto se tako iscrpila i Persija. Pa su Arapi tako
mogli da zgaze celu Sev. Afriku sa Egiptom, Palestinu i Siriju te
Persiju. A bas su Turkmeni zaustavili prodor Arapa i islama u danasnju
Juznu Rusiju i istocnu Ukrajinu -> Hazarsko/Arapski ratovi.

Yet the spectacular geopolitical change which the 535 catastrophe
wrought in Mongolia happened not simply because the weather was bad –
but because the Avar and Turk economies reacted differently to the
event.
========No comment.

Mundanely, in Mongolia it was the difference in the designs of cows’ and
horses’ stomachs which was probably responsible. The Avar economy – and
military strength – was utterly dependent on the horse, whereas the
Turks had a more mixed economy, including cattle. To the Avars, the
horse was everything – a source of meat, milk, cheese, yoghurt and even
alcohol (the sweet fermented mares’ milk called koumis). But horses
often find it much more difficult to survive drought than cattle. Horses
fail to digest – and therefore excrete – up to 75 per cent of the
protein they eat. By contrast, cattle excrete as little as 25 per cent.
Thus, when all there was to eat was dried-out, low-protein grass, cattle
had a marked advantage over horses.
===============E, bas bi voleo da znam odakle je cova ovo
izvukao. Mislim, kako zna du su Avari ziveli iskljucivo od konja a
Turkmeni imali mesovitu ekonomiju - konji i stoka?

Mundanely, in Mongolia it was the
difference in the designs of cows’ and horses’ stomachs which was probably
responsible. The Avar economy – and military strength – was utterly dependent on
the horse, whereas the Turks had a more mixed economy, including cattle. To the
Avars, the horse was everything – a source of meat, milk, cheese, yoghurt and
even alcohol (the sweet fermented mares’ milk called koumis). But horses often
find it much more difficult to survive drought than cattle. Horses fail to
digest – and therefore excrete – up to 75 per cent of the protein they eat. By
contrast, cattle excrete as little as 25 per cent. Thus, when all there was to
eat was dried-out, low-protein grass, cattle had a marked advantage over
horses.===============E, bas bi voleo da znam odakle je cova ovo
izvukao. Mislim, kako zna du su Avari ziveli iskljucivo od konja a Turkmeni
imali mesovitu ekonomiju - konji i
stoka?-----------------------------------------------------

Quote:Below is an extract of the Stratigikon of Maurikios (600AD), that gives a description of the Avars' way of living:

"...Skythians are the Avars, the Turks and the other similar Hunnic tribes. As I have said they have no order. Only the Turks and Avars take care of their military order, which is stronger than the one of the other Skythians, who fight in scattered groups. The Turks are numerous and free, frugals, having nothing else practiced than to be brave in the battle. The Avars are very malicious and experienced in the battle-field. Being nomads, they hold on well in great heat and cold. Stratigikon of Maurikios 11,2,1 (G.T. Dennis publications, Das Strategikon des Maurikios, Vienna 1981)

Quote:Yet the spectacular geopolitical change which the 535 catastrophe wrought in Mongolia happened not simply because the weather was bad â but because the Avar and Turk economies reacted differently to the event.

Quote:In the light of these remarks, the very nature of a Sclavene ethnicity needs serious reconsideration. Procopius and later authors may have used this ethnic name as an umbrella-term for various groups living north of the Danube frontier, which were neither "Antes," nor "Huns" or "Avars". Jordanes did the same, though unlike others, he chose an ancient name, the Venethi, probably because he believed that the contemporary configuration of gentes beyond the limits of the Empire was a consequence, if not a reincarnation, of that described by ancient authors such as Tacitus or Ptolemy. To him, in other words, the barbarians of the sixth century unless touched by the course of Gothic history, were frozen in time and space, basically the same and in the same place as viewed by the ancient authors.

Quote:Yet the spectacular geopolitical change which the 535 catastrophe wrought in Mongolia happened not simply because the weather was bad â but because the Avar and Turk economies reacted differently to the event.

7.12. (A12) Metathesis of liquids in South Slavic and
Czecho-Slovak. The metathesis was often accompanied by lengthening. The timbre
of the vowel shows that the metathesis was anterior to the rise of the new
timbre distinctions (7.13) in Czecho-Slovak and South Slavic, but posterior to
that development in Lekhitic and Sorbian. The metathesis did not reach East
Slavic except in word-initial position, where it was early in the entire Slavic
area, e.g. Ru. rálo ‚plough™, Cz. rádlo < ar?dla. It was apparently posterior
to 7.5, cf. SCr. dlijèto ‚chisel™.

5.2. (B2) Labialization of a, ā and merger with o, ō .
This development wasposterior to the shortening of the acc.sg. ending of the ā
-stems to -am, OCS. - oN, because the latter did not merge with the reflex of -
n, OCS. -y.

5.12. (B5) Delabialization of o, ō to a, ā . It did not
affect the nasal vowel oN. This development was evidently posterior to 5.9, 5.10
and 5.11.

7.13. (A13 = B14) Rise of the new timbre distinctions. In
posttonic syllables the glottal stop was lost without compensatory lengthening,
whereas in stressed syllables it became a feature of the preceding vowel,
comparable to the Latvian broken tone. As a result, the timbre distinctions
between the short vowels and the acute iclonglt vowels became phonemically
relevant, e.g. wy ̓ dra ‚otter™, s ъ̏ to ‚hundred™. This development was
posterior to the raising of ẹ̄ and ō (7.9) because these vowels are reflected as
i and u in the historical languages. It was also posterior to the loss of yN
because the latter yielded two reflexes, ъ and y, the timbre difference between
which cannot be explained if we assume that yN was preserved up to a later
stage. It was probably posterior to the East Slavic retraction (7.10) of initial
e to a, which now became o.

The Misconception of Generalized Shortening and Related Issues in the Evolution of Slavic Liquid Diphthongs

Ronald Feldstein

In dealing with the elimination of Slavic liquid diphthongs(art, tart, turt), Slavic linguistic scholarship (Jakobson's 1952 article, Bethin's recent book, Slavic Prosody, and many other studies) has often used modern reflexes of a or o as evidence of either a generalization of length or shortening at the time of the elimination of these diphthongs. However, the behavior of such words as Polish krĂłl is a strong counterargument to that claim, since the o acts like a long vowel. A short o would have given modern /u/ only in pre-jer position, yet here we have /u/ in all environments.

My paper argues that in the tart groups, a moraic r was always changed to a non-moraic liquid, and this always caused a lengthening of the vowel as compensation. The only reason for the Northern Slavic o is the fact that the rounding of short a > o occurred before the vowel lengthening. In other words, the relative chronology of the a > o change determines the basic difference between the trot/torot reflexes and the trat type.

However, the issue is not quite as simple as that. The behavior of North Slavic anlaut art groups does indeed allow us to use modern o/a reflexes as evidence of the original quantity. (Northern art reflexes are split not on the basis of intonation, as commonly stated, but vowel quantity.) North Slavic (including Czech) demonstrates the original inherited quantity in anlaut position and the fact that the r never became moraic in this anlaut environment, in contrast to inlaut tart, where it did. The non-moraic r made art an early candidate for metathesis in the North, but this rule reached the South later, together with the rule for the elimination of moraic r in the inlaut tart diphthongs. Therefore, the North conservatively retains quantity in art (rot and rat), but lengthens the vowel in tart, while the South treats both alike (rat and trat).

The Northern chronological difference in the art and tart metatheses also explains East Slavic polnoglasie. In the earlier period, the original bi-moraic a of rat could be treated as a long vowel, due to the presence of phonemic quantity. Later, after the lengthening of tort to bi-moraic toort, East Slavic was losing the quantitative opposition, so that toort was accommodated as a two-syllable sequence [to-ort]. Metathesis then affects only the second of these syllables, giving the familiar polnoglasie torot.

In virtually all Slavic zones, trat reflexes go with the presence of syllabic r, while trot/torot reflexes go with an absence of syllabic r. In both cases, the reason is that North Slavic had an earlier change of non-mid short vowel to a mid vowel. The first of these cases is the a > o change. The second is the Northern change of high i,u > mid, in so-called strong position, which included the position before the moraic r of the turt diphthongs. North Slavic experienced this change in time for the moraic r to be eliminated. The mid vowel created a greater sonority difference between the new vowel and liquid than had been the case in turt. Following a regular pattern of rules for monophthongization, greater sonority differences caused a non-high first component to prevail as moraic, (er/or/ar, etc.).

In Czecho-Slovak and South Slavic, though, high vowels did not change to mid in time for this to occur. Lesser sonority differences caused the first component to assimilate to the second one (two r moras, i.e., a long syllabic r). In other words, Czecho-Slovak and South Slavic experienced both Short > Mid I (i.e. a > o) and Short > Mid II (i/u > mid) too late to affect tart/turt, in contrast to North Slavic, which obtains its trot/tart or torot/tort type reflexes as a result of early Short > Mid I and II.

The set of changes enumerated above presents a rather different picture of the Slavic liquid diphthong evolution. This paper will argue that it is justified by the facts.